From: Alex Young <alex@...>
Date: 2006-08-02T04:51:23+09:00
Subject: Re: For performance, write it in C - Part 3, Source code now available

csaba wrote:
> Peter Hickman wrote:
>> The source code is available from
>> http://peterhi.dyndns.org/write_it_in_c/index.html
> 
> Hmm, it would look much better for me if you had included Kristof
> Bastiaensen's Curry version
> into the party... Heck, if that code is not smart then nothing is, and
> in a way, it's a much more
> interesting question how a compiled functional language compares to
> compiled imepative ones
> than the thousand time discussed interpreted vs. compiled match-up.
> 
> Yes, Curry is anything but mainstream, but you can't say a decent
> compiler is not at your disposal.
> The Munster CC (which was used by Kristof, and AFAIK that's the most
> commonly used implementation) does even have an IDE for OS X.

While I certainly appreciate the efforts that are going into this, I 
can't help feeling it's all completely irrelevant.

We can engage in cross-implementation pissing contests until the cows 
come home.  None of them help make Ruby any faster.

My question to the community:  is there a comprehensive benchmark suite 
*for Ruby alone* that we can use to tweak compilation settings, try out 
different core algorithms, and improve what is currently an improvable 
situation?

If not, would a port of pybench.py be a suitable start?

-- 
Alex